Is it hearsay when Alvin Onaka, upon being asked to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”, refuses to verify that even though required by law to verify whatever is submitted to him for verification if he can?
Addition to that last post: Alvin Onaka is the custodian of the record in question, and the HDOH Administrative Rules give him the authority to determine when a record is disqualified from having certified copies issued, etc. If there is a problem with a vital record it is his expressed job to make sure that it is NOT passed off to the public as if it was fine.
IOW, he is the only “expert” in Hawaii who can lawfully verify anything from Obama’s BC - and he would not verify any of the submitted birth facts or the genuineness of the White House image.
Who could anybody present as a more legally authoritative “expert” than that? The AL Democratic Party presented Onaka as the final authority and probably didn’t like it much when Zullo countered their amicus brief with his own amicus brief pointing out that the expert they referenced actually refused to verify the genuineness of the White House image... Their very own witness actually contradicted what they were trying to claim...
Maybe, maybe not, but your statement is certainly hearsay.